R v TA

In the case of R v TA, the appellant stood convicted of serious sexual offences involving a complainant who had been drugged and who had no memory of the assaults, which were captured on video. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal, where the appellant challenged both his conviction and his sentence. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of the complainant's apparent consent or lack thereof, and if this constituted an oppressive use of the evidence under s79 of the Evidence Act 1995. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the sentence imposed was appropriate given the circumstances, particularly in light of the substantial accumulation principle applied in sentencing for multiple offences.

The court found that the trial judge did not err in admitting the evidence of apparent consent, as this was relevant to the issue of whether the appellant believed the complainant consented. However, the court noted that the opinion of whether the complainant consented or appeared to consent was irrelevant to the jury's consideration of the charges. The court held that while the evidence was not inadmissible per se, its admission was oppressive as it placed undue emphasis on the complainant's state of mind and did not align with the principles of fairness and justice. The court concluded that the evidence should have been excluded under s79 of the Evidence Act. Regarding the sentence, the court determined that the trial judge appropriately considered the cumulative impact of the offences and imposed a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the crimes, thus upholding the sentence as reasonable.